[Kevin Sevcik]

I'll toss another 2 cents into the jar here..

I think it's obvious that the penalties are for behavior modification. I think it's also obvious that they're working because they're so high and damaging that getting a single penalty means your round is pretty much over. No one can risk getting one or even being anywhere near where your could get one. Forget capping the opposing team's goals because you're on their side of the field and an errant twitch of the joystick might make you graze their robot and lose the match.

But I digress. I think the real question at this point is if this kind of behavior modification is what we want and what's in the best interest of FIRST.

The obvious slant is towards an all-offensive game with little or no defense. I submit that we've already seen the results of an all offensive game with Diabolical Dynamics in 2001. Yes, it was slightly different, but a purely offensive game is essentially DD being run on two fields that happen to occupy the same area of the arena. I personally don't think this is as exciting for the reasons stated by many others above. Defense is interesting and exciting. Seeing robots perform choreographed acts of scoring isn't so exciting. I think the general public understands this as well. We will almost always have the problem of spectators no being able to quickly determine how scoring works and who wins a match. By letting defense back into the game you give them something to watch and cheer about while they're figuring out what's going on. If John Q. doesn't understand the significance of the tetra Wildstang is about to cap, winning them 2 rows at the last second, he can atleast understand that they're trying to put it on and Swampthing is trying valiantly to keep them from doing so.

Defense gives poeple a fundamental way of understanding a game. We're competitive creatures by nature, and we understand two robots striving against each other on a rather basic level. I'm not sure why strong, fair defense is a thing to be avoided.